PART 3 OF A TWO PART SERIES: A CASE AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT THAT MAKES THE CASE FOR STARK COUNTY PROBATE COURT JUDGE DIXIE PARK TO RESIGN?

UPDATED:  07:55 AM

When The Stark County Political Report started this series, it was advertised as being a "two part" series.

But as the headline above indicates, today's blog is entitled "PART 3 OF A (originally intended) TWO PART SERIES."

But if this story breaks the fashion the SCPR thinks it might, it could rival other headline blogs that The Report has been in the thick of; namely, the Phil Davison video (which went viral on the Internet in September, 2010) and the George T. Maier controversy when he was removed as the Stark County Democratic Party appointed on November 6, 2013.

Accordingly, it is likely that today's blog is not the last in this series.  However, if this series continues on, the headline format will remain PART # OF A TWO PART SERIES to serve as a reminder to readers that one never knows where a SCPR blog is going to lead.

The Report learned late yesterday that WOIO, Channel 19, and investigative reporter Carl Monday is instituting an investigation of the judicial conduct of Stark County Probate Court (Trial Court) judge Dixie Park.

The Report is told that parties-in-interest in another guardianship (In re: Balog) forwarded one of or both the SCPR Monday and Tuesday blogs to a lead official at Channel 19 and that Monday was directed to conduct an investigation.

The focus of today's blog is on:

• the continuing saga of the story behind the Fifth District Court of Appeals (Appellate Court) decision in the case In re: Finan in which the Appellate Court found that Judge Park had violated the Constitutional Rights of Barbara Lockhart of Alliance in jailing her for not timely providing documents and making appearances in the Trial Court.
• the suffering and indignities incurred by Lockhart in being jailed by Judge Park, and
• an amplification of allegations made by local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley on certain judicial conduct by Park, and
• where the Park matter might be headed.

THE CONTINUING SAGA 
& 
WHERE THE MATTER MIGHT BE  HEADED

Jeff Jakmides, attorney for Barbara Lockhart, did not know how to respond when Appellate Court Judge Scott Gwin inquired on hearing the horrifying story of an ordinary Stark Countian being thrown into the Stark County jail asked:  What can we do for your client?

Jakmides' response:  "You can clear her record."

Another of his responses was "You can refer the matter to Ohio's Disciplinary Council."

Response from the Appellate Court judges?

None.

But, of course, there should have been no response on the "you can refer [Park] to disciplinary counsel."

For although Ohio judges and attorneys are obligated under the Rules of Professional Conduct to report to Disciplinary Counsel any conduct done by attorneys/judges that they witness or become aware of; anyone who refers is prohibited by those same rules in revealing having done so.

The only person who can discuss such a referral is the subject him/herself. 

So it is possible that one or more of the Appellate judges did a referral to Disciplinary Counsel.

The SCPR has information to the effect that Craig Conley may have filed such a referral on Park.  And The Report asked Conley whether or not he had done so.  But to no avail.  Conley would neither confirm or deny that he had done so.

Another point of oral argument before the Appellate Court by Jakmides is his description of an exchange that took place between himself, Judge W. Scott Gwin, Judge William B. Hoffman and Judge John W. Wise.

A paraphrase: (Jakmides speaking)  "Judge Hoffman, Judge Wise, Judge Gwin; you've been around.  We've got a trial lawyer:  Judge Gwin.  We've got former trial courts judges:  Judges Hoffman and Wise.  We've got former prosecutors: Judges Hoffman, Wise and Gwin.  We've got a judge who has been a defense attorney:  Judge Gwin.

Note:  And Judge Wise is the son of former Stark County judge Reuben Z. Wise, Jr. who died suddenly and tragically (1985) while serving as Stark County Probate Court judge.  The SCPR knew Judge Reuben Z. Wise, Jr.  And, it is clear to The Report, that the Lockhart matter would never, ever have occurred in Judge Reuben Z. Wise's court.  Not the remotest possibility!!! Reuben Z. Wise was a "bend over backwards" type of judge referred to elsewhere in this blog.

After summing up some 120 years of legal/judicial experience as between Gwin, Hoffman, Wise and Jakmides himself, he asks them:  "Have we ever seen anything remotely like this in all our combined years?"

Gwin, Hoffman and Wise did not say a word in response.  But the SCPR believes they had to be in full accord with Jakmides observation as evidenced by their clear and unmistakable decision in reversing Judge Park.

One legal commenter has observed to the SCPR that these Appellate Court judges not only found that Jakmides had established one legal error by Judge Park.

They went on to do what courts do not generally do (once the court has found one sufficient basis on which to reverse a trial judge) they found that Jakmides had established the second of two asserted Judge Park errors of law.

And not just any law, but the bedrock of American law:  constitutional rights law.

It boggles the mind - given In re: Finan that Judge Park thinks she is qualified to get out in the community and talk about constitutional rights.

LOCKHART'S SUFFERING
HORROR, TERROR & HUMILIATION!

As a matter of the public record, Lockhart attorney Jakmides described in some detail in Trial Court and Appellate Court filings the emotional trauma (terror) that Ms. Lockhart suffered as a consequence of being jailed by Judge Park.

And what 56 year old citizen who has never had to deal with the justice system wouldn't be terrified?

Jakmides told the SCPR that when he first visited with Mrs. Lockhart on October 9th, she was in a complete state of frenzy.

Jakmides also tells The Report that in his experience as an attorney (deemed by many in the Stark County bar to be one of Stark's very best criminal defense attorneys) courts bend over backwards (even granting "unreasonable" requests of a defendant) to ensure that all a potential jailed person is afforded all her constitutional rights (notice, opportunity to be heard and the assistance of competent legal counsel, et cetera) before there is any thought of convicting a person such as Lockhart and sentencing them to jail.

The SCPR has obtained a description (from one in a indisputable position to know) of the process Mrs. Lockhart went through from the moment of being arrested on Judge Park's bench "arrest" warrant, to wit:

She would have been taken from her home,  handcuffed and placed in the back of a cruiser and then transported to the Stark County Jail, likely in the full view of their family and neighbors, as well as the general public.

Upon arrival at the Jail, Lockhart

• would have been fingerprinted,

• had her mug shots taken, 

• required to disrobe and surrender all her personal belongings (including jewelry, watches, etc.), and

• she would have, on October 1, 2013, have been issued a blue Jail jumpsuit and slippers, after which  placed in the appropriate Jail population,

At the Stark County jail, Mrs. Lockhart almost certainly was incarcerated alongside prostitutes,. drunks, drug addicts and "lesser" violent offenders, noting that more experienced and hardened inmates often cruelly threaten and abuse "newbies" in "survival of the fittest" fashion.

Note:  An extended stay in the Stark County jail means that Mrs. Lockhart suffered the horror and humiliation of being deprived of her liberty in the company of people who did not have the financial resources to get out of jail on bond, had such a terrible history that they were not eligible for bond or in waiting - after having been convicted to be transported to "hard time" prison.

Getting out of jail for those charged but not convicted normally is easy to achieve.  Of course, having been illegally convicted, Mrs. Lockhart was not eligible to post bond.  Accordingly, she, for her 11 days in jail, was among the most destitute that Stark County has.

As a Stark County jail inmate, Mrs. Lockhart was subject to a strict regimen as to what she was permitted and not allowed to do at what time; and, 

And, perhaps, for the first time in her life, Mrs. Lockhart would had to use common showers, toilet facilities and sleeping arrangements with a large number of fellow prisoners.

On being transported to Court for hearing on October 2, 2013, Lockhart would have been taken handcuffed and chained and in her jail-issued jumpsuit and slippers.

Note:  On October 2nd, Mrs. Lockhart - who had never been in trouble with the law in her entire life - her attorney says - on the 2nd gets sentenced by Judge Park to 30 days in jail without having been afforded her constitutional rights. 

An additional alarming factor of the October 2nd hearing, Jakmides says, is that there is no recording, there is no transcript of what actually went on when Park found Lockhart guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced her to jail.

Such trauma, terror and utter humiliation is what Judge Park's unconstitutional denial (reference In re: Finan) of Lockhart of her due process of law rights was in large part, if not completely, visited upon over an 11 day period of time until she secured the legal services of Attorney Jeff Jakmides.

If the "legal thrashing" at the hands of the Appellate Court were not enough to prompt Park to resign her place on the Stark County bench, it seems to the SCPR that the horror, terror and humiliation she visited on an ordinary - no prior record Stark Countian - upon reflection, would be enough for her to do the right thing by Stark Countians.

WHERE IS THIS MATTER HEADING?

It is hard to say.

Of course, the thing the SCPR thinks ought to happen and Judge Park will realize how grievous the consequences to Barbara Lockhart of her legal mistake were and step down.

But The Report does not think that Judge Park will go that easily.

Perhaps WOIO and Monday getting into a scrutiny of the Lockhart and other Park handled judicial matters will be a convincing factor to Park.

Of course, nobody who knows can speak to the matter, but perhaps Ohio's Supreme Court will be taking up the matter in a disciplinary complaint.

Every judge in Stark County and Ohio has an interest in not having on Ohio's bar of justice judges who do not apparently know the fundamental "law of the land!"

"ANTI-DOUBLE-DIPPING" BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CRUSADE UNDERWAY?

A crusade?

Could be.

Ice Cream anyone?

That is the lure of the Robert Cyperski campaign to attract prospective petition signers to his event tomorrow (Sunday) from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Belden Village Holiday Inn located at 4520 Everhard Road, NW in Canton.

Cyperski has decided to attempt collecting 5,002 signatures by the filing deadline of March 5th to get on the ballot as an "independent" candidate against incumbent judge and Republican John Wise.

Wise has been a 5th Court of Appeals (5th COA) judge since 1995 and is now at the point that he wants to retire as judge at a retirement annual income of about $116,160 and then stand for re-election to the very same job and collect an additional $132,000 and thereby top out at about $248,160 or nearly "a quarter of a million dollars."  Hmm?  Not bad!

Will Cyperski takes offense at those numbers together with the reality that Wise, in running again, is freezing out the opportunity of younger aspirants to serve on Ohio's second highest court (second only to the Ohio Supreme Court).

Both Cyperski and Wise are well-qualified.  So, if he gets on the ballot, the issue will not be whether or not Wise has been an able judge or as to his qualifications.  It will be an opportunity for Stark Countians as well as the citizens of 14th other counties which comprise the 5th COA to vote on the issue of "double-dipping."

Cyperski's campaign, if he can get the mind boggling 5,002 signatures, will have an evangelistic fervor to it.  That's how passionately he is driven on making his mark against the infectious growth among public officials (mostly unelected ones) to double-dip.

As a sidenote here, the Stark County Political Report points out that candidates for either the Republican or Democratic nomination for this office is 50 signatures.  Yes, 50 signatures as compared to over 5,000 for an "independent" candidate.

It just goes to show how Republican and Democratic politicians conspire with one another to keep the political competition out.

The Ohio General Assembly (OGA) has changed Ohio's policies over the last 10 years or so to allow the retire/rehire phenomenon to flourish.

Judge Wise and the unelecteds are doing nothing wrong from a legal standpoint in advantaging themselves of retire/rehire.

But nonetheless the practice is not setting well with much of Ohio's voting public.

Trouble is for Ohio's voters is that they have to be frustrated that they have been provided with no medium with which to weigh in on the issue.

One has to wonder why the  OGA has shut them out of the process of determining what the policy of retire/hire or double-dipping or whatever one wants to call it ought to be.

A Cyperski/Wise match up on the issue provides Stark Countians with a unique opportunity to be heard on retire/rehire.

Legislation has been introduced in the current session of the General Assembly to stymie the retire/rehire growth, to wit:  House Bills 202 & 388. 

But the SCPR takes these measures as being a sop to the voting public because of the increasingly vocal outcry.

Unless and until something like a sitting judge gets defeated on the unmistakable fact that voters have said no on the basis of retire/rehire, The Report does not believe that most representatives and state senators are interested in seriously addressing the issue.

For the sake of discussion, here is a look at the two bills sitting in the legislative hopper of the Ohio General Assembly.

HOUSE BILL 202

House Bill 202 is opposed, of course, by the Ohio Judicial Conference.  Here is an extract from its website of the conference.

HOUSE BILL 388

The main problem with this bill is that it does not to affect elected officials which, of course, means the members of the Ohio General Assembly itself (which has upwards of a dozen members who fit the retire/rehire category), judges and obviously any other Ohio-based elected official such as Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson, who, if the SCPR understands correctly prior statements he has made,  has three retirement accounts.

Nevertheless here are some excerpts of descriptive material (by WNWO Newsdesk) as well as a number of quotes by the chief sponsor of HB 388 (Republican Rex Damschroder, the 81st House District) as to the bill's "other" impact:

HB 388 will suspend, during the time of employment, the retirement benefits of a public retirement system retiree who returns to public employment. Under the bill, all government workers, including elected officials, will be prohibited from a practice often known as "retire/rehire"– where workers are permitted to receive their pension benefits while continuing to work in a public sector position.

NOTE:  Although the WNWO description says "including elected officials," a SCPR check of the actual language of the proposed legislation which clearly excepts out "elected" officials.

Damschroder quotes:

•  "The goal of HB 388 is to bring common-sense economic reforms to our public retirement systems." 
• "We have all witnessed or read about examples of double dipping in our local area and the public outrage that always follows."
• "For every instance of retire/rehire, one less job is available for new public workers.  Changing the current system is essential in order to save the integrity of Ohio’s five public retirement systems. Asking the taxpayers of our state to support double dipping in today’s economy is unrealistic.”

As written above, the SCPR believes that HB 202 and HB 388 are not serious efforts to deal with increasing public criticism of Ohio's retire/rehire phenomenon.

Accordingly, The Report endorses Cyperski's attempt to get on the ballot and encourages all Stark Countians to help Cyperski get on the ballot so that the issue of double-dipping can be addressed at the ballot box.

While some will still vote on Cyperski or Wise on factors other than retire/retire/double-dipping, the campaign that Cyperski will be running and which Judge Wise will be forced to defend is whether or not retire/rehire is a good idea.

Once the people have had an opportunity to have their say the legislature will have a true indicator of whether or not they need to re-legislate on the matter in order to truly reflect the people's desire on the practice.

ATTORNEY ROBERT CYPERSKI TO RUN AGAINST JUDGE JOHN WISE ON ISSUE OF "RETIRE" - "REHIRE VIA ELECTION?"

Ohio's Statehouse Republicans and Democrats have made it difficult but it does appear that 5th District Court of Appeals and Republican Judge John Wise may well have a political "independent" running against him in Wise's quest for a new term who has been on the Court of Appeals since 1995.

His likely opponent?

Robert Cyperski.

However, he will have to collect 5,000 qualified registered voter signatures within the next two weeks for filing with the Stark County Board of Elections not later than March 5th in order to be on the general election ballot of November 6th.

If Cyperski had filed as a partisan candidate, he would only have had to collect 50 such signatures.

Organized Republican and Democratic party leaders think the extraordinary requirement of independent candidates is a politically smart self preservation move.  And, to a certain degree it is.  However, such self-serving moves also adds to the growing cynicism that the general voting public has towards both mainline parties and over the longer term undermines their ability to govern effectively.

Cyperski issued the following press release on Friday stating his intention to run against Wise and to base his campaign on Wise's announced intention to retire before the end of his current term (but within a space not allowing for his political party to name a successor for the remainder of his term) and then run for re-election.

Wise unabashedly says that it is within his legal right to do so in order to collect his his public employee pension which is thought to be 88% of $132,000 (the salary for the position) or $116,160 plus the salary (if re-elected) of $132,000 which, of course, would equal about $248,160.

Wise would also qualify for an approximate 3% annual increase over the span of collecting his retirement check with a beginning in 2013 amount of about $3,500 which for 2013 would put him above a quarter of a million dollars in annual income from salary and pension alone.

By the SCPR's calculation, Judge Wise's annual pension income will exceed the base salary of $132,000 within 5 years or so.  Sweet, no?

Wise has been on a fast track in achieving elective office.  It has not hurt his judicial political aspirations that both his father and grandfather were Stark County Probate Court judges going back decades.

Here is his biography as published on the 5th District Court of Appeals website:

JUDGE JOHN W. WISE

Administrative Judge

Judge Wise graduated from Ohio Northern University School of Law and was admitted to the practice of law in 1979. Prior to being elected to the Canton Municipal Court bench in 1990, Judge Wise was in private practice for ten years. His practice consisted of general civil litigation, including personal injury from both plaintiff and defense side, along with an active probate practice. From municipal court, Judge Wise was elected to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas and in 1995, he successfully ran for the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Judge Wise has served by assignment of the Chief Justice on the Ohio Supreme Court. He also serves as a Lecturer for the Ohio Judicial College.

Judge Wise is not the only 5th District Court of Appeals judges to invoke a retire - rehire plan of action.

His colleague Democrat Judge W. Scott Gwin has announced his intention to do the very same thing.

The same folks who have prevailed on Cyperski to run are working hard to find a Gwin opponent.

The SCPR endorses the effort underway to find opponents for Wise and Gwin as it is The Report's position that the voters should have the opportunity to weigh in on whether or not the public likes the idea of retire - rehire, Wise and Gwin fashion.

The Ohio General Assembly in its policy making decisions regarding Ohio's public retirement systems has created a situation whereby public retirement does not equal actual retirement from publicly funded positions.

There are strict Ohio Supreme Court prohibitive rules on the methods/topics that candidates can use in contests for judicial office on the notion that if typical political attacks (i.e. those commonly used in non-judicial races) on candidates' judicial record itself were allowed, such would undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.

The Supreme Court limitations notwithstanding, it is hard to see how Cyperski could be shut down on his plan to make the retire - rehire issue the focus of his campaign to replace Judge Wise.

Whether or not Stark citizens favor or disfavor Wise/Gwin retaining office, it seems to the SCPR that it is the democratic-enhancing thing to do to support petition drives designed to provide voters with candidates who oppose the announced intentions of sitting judges to retire but run for re-election.

What the Ohio General Assembly does not provide, the citizens of the state of Ohio/Stark county can fashion for themselves.

"We the people" are the baseline of our democratic republic.

(VIDEO OF CANTON RETIRE/REHIRE EMPLOYEE) A REFERENDUM ON RETIRE & REHIRE COMING UP ON JUDGE GWIN, JUDGE WISE RE-ELECTION BIDS?

UPDATED:  08:13 AM

The Stark County Political Report (SCPR - The Report) has been tracking the retire/rehire controversy in Stark County since April 6, 2008.

The Report began publication on March 12, 2008 and so regular readers of this blog have to be well informed as to who among Stark County officials, past and present, have advantaged themselves with the so called "double-dipping" whereby they retire from public employment only to be rehired for the very same job at the very same salary to collect in addition to their retirement benefit.

Here are links for blogs done by the SCPR going back to April 6, 2008 related in one fashion or another on the retire/rehire question.

04/06/08

04/27/08

05/01/08

05/24/08

10/13/08

03/20/09

03/22/09

06/04/09

02/24/10

05/24/10

06/20/10

06/27/10

06/29/10

With respect to elected officials, the SCPR sees retire/rehire just a little bit different than those instances like the city of Canton is undergoing with respect to certain "unelected" public officials who retired and rehired without the taxpayers/voters having a say.

ON ELECTED OFFICIALS

To concentrate on a few examples:

Stark Countians could have rejected the re-election bid of 5th District Court of Appeals Judge William Hoffman (a colleague of Judges Gwin and Wise) on "a no hire/retiree" basis, but they did not.

Stark Countians could have rejected the re-election bid of Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson on "a no hire a retiree" basis, but they did not.

Of course, there was no organized effort to focus public attention on the retire/rehire dimension of the Hoffman and Swanson campaigns nor on the re-election/election of retired public officials who ran for other offices.

But for Judges Gwin (a Democrat, presiding judge of the 5th and a son of a former judge) and Wise (a Republican, administrative judge of the 5th and a son of a former judge) this may be about to change.

On Saturday, the SCPR received a call from a well known local attorney who wanted to talk about the Gwin/Wise plans to put themselves in the $250,000 (more or less) per annum income bracket and $200,000 (more or less) per annum income bracket UNOPPOSED.

"Unopposed," - a key word.

At least Swanson had an opponent in 2008 (Larry Dordea, himself a retiree as Alliance police chief who now is building up additional retirement benefits as Hartville police chief).

With both candidates on retirement, what choice the the voters have?

Gwin and Wise; NO OPPOSITION?  Should not be!

The SCPR trusts that the effort to find "independent" candidates (who are not retired) to put up against Gwin and Wise will bear fruit and that a well-funded, organized, staff (by unpaid volunteers) and articulate campaign will be put before the Stark County electorate to determine whether or not the Gwin and Wise plan for themselves is acceptable to the voting public.

If a well-informed electorate thinks it okay for the likes of Gwin and Wise to hang on until the bitter end (both at age 60 will have the opportunity to two more times under current law and thereby could possibly serve until they are 72 or so) while fattening their incomes with a combo of n annual salary of $132,000 plus a healthy retirement income, who is to complain?

However, we all need to be clear as to what "the will of the people" is in a context of actual election contests which focus the vote on the retire/rehire aspect of what Gwin and Wise wish to do on the condition that the candidates in opposition meet the threshold of being "qualified" candidates as assessed by the local bar associations which comprise the 5th.

Back in November Stark County and Ohio voters overwhelming voted to reject extending the age to which judges can run for office (proposed to be age 75 - State Issue #1), to wit:

Has the Ohio Legislature misread what people think on the retire/rehire issue?

If the effort to produce independent opponents to Gwin and Wise, Stark County could lead the way in providing a ballot box answer.

The SCPR's preference is that once public officials decide to retire, they should retire - pure and simple.  No gaming the system.  Ohio should enact legislation to make such the law of the state.

As things stand now, the judges are acting within their rights.  Of course, the voters in the 5th Court of Appeals District can trump their try.


ON UNELECTED OFFICIALS

Unelected public officials/employees (school superintendents, teachers, police, fire, health workers et cetera) should only be allowed to retire/rehire on the condition that they take a 40% reduction in wages and work without any fringe benefits in the non-retirement work context.

And that only on the certification by designated officials (e.g. the mayor of a city or village, on the unanimous vote of a board of education) that the retiree/rehiree is an essential person to the effective functioning of the certifying government.

While we know very little what is going on in Canton with the 30 (more or less) employees (some quite well known public figures - some of who The Report understands are sitting elected officials) who "quietly" retired and were rehired in their public jobs without missing a beat,  it appears that city officials going back sometime (apparently at least through the Creighton and Watkins administrations) have been allowing if not encouraging this very practice at a significant cost to the taxpayers of Canton:  a city running million dollar plus deficits in recent years.

Here is a video of Leroy Lynch of Canton addressing Canton City Council last Monday night on the issue.



In the case of elected officials, Stark Countians have the opportunity to vote no on retire/rehire.

But in the case of unelected officials/employees, the public has no say in the matter.

Take the category of superintendents of schools.  For the most part superintendents cultivate "sweetheart" relationships with their respective boards of education and there is no "arms length" negotiating that takes place to protect the public's financial interest.

Such is the reason why the Ohio legislature needs to impose a structure on those public officials and bodies that are doing the retire/rehire thing.

DOES RETIRE/REHIRE PHENOMENON HAVE AN EROSIVE EFFECT ON PUBLIC VIEW ON INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT?


As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly believes that there is a steady erosion of public support for institutions of government at all levels and the culprit is not limited to a Vince Furstaci theft in office type of event.

Violations of the "sunshine law," arbitrary denials of "public records" to the requesting public, overuse of "executive sessions" by public officials and a myriad of other government official abuses of the taxpaying/voting public including, perhaps, the retire/rehire phenomenon,  belong as part of the "culprit" list.

It could be that the general public feels gamed, abused and "played the sucker" by the way retire/rehire has evolved as sanctioned by the Ohio General Assembly (OGA).

There is a move in the OGA to change the rules for retire/rehire.  Here is a extract of HB 202 (introduced on 04/12/2011) analysis by the Ohio Judicial Conference.

It is about time that a mechanism be provided to citizens-at-large to gauge how the voting public feels about retire/rehire.

And the Gwin/Wise re-election pursuits of November, 2012 may turn out to be a 15 county (the jurisdiction of the 5th District Court of Appeals - Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas counties) referendum on the issue.

After all, our government is to be one of the people, for the people and by the people, isn't it Abraham Lincoln?